Cat Cruelty

kittens · Post by **kittens** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:33 am

From my view point as statistician, I think everyone is right.

All these intense studies are done because we want to prevent or catch some sing of violence toward human early stage. Since clearly one can find strong correlations between I can say this is very reasonable that if you see someone who abuse animals you will try to punish them or teach them this is wrong (or educating them). This is because it is better safe than sorry. This is why, for these issues, if there is any correlations we should pay strong attentions.

So I think everyone who abuse animals should be punished and be re-educated.

I can see BH and sletia's points. I can see Olivier's point.

I think everyone has good points and we should let it go. We all know that animal abuse is wrong and agree on the basic idea.
Like I said before, I think everyone should stop arguing over this?

?

Killua · Post by **Killua** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:03 am

Not everyone can be wholly right, not here nor anywhere.

But certainly all who have posted in this thread have written some things that were correct.

I disagree that children who abuse animals should be punished because they might turn out to be human abusers. That there is a correlation certainly adds to the seriousness of the matter, and if the abuse is particularly bad it would be smart to watch for certain signs in the child of violent tendencies and try to counteract them, but the child should be punished simply because it is wrong to abuse an animal. No one should be punished for possible future acts.

Olivier · Post by **Olivier** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:08 am

sletia wrote:I said I wasn't arguing anymore, alright? Just leave me alone already. I guess your child or as a child you killed a family pet or something, because you seem pretty darn defensive and adamant about all this being disproved. If it was me I would have just said "I don't agree with you" and let it go..

Nope, never killed any pet in my life. Please don't take it personally, I post only for the sake of argument. I am interested in everyone's opinion, but when I think there is an error in the reasoning I try to correct it. I can't agree when you write "People who abuse animals usually move up to PEOPLE". Although I see your point, I think this is a dangerous exageration of the truth. With such reasoning, you end-up putting half the population of the US in jail.

I have another set of interesting statistics for you:
- 60,000 people in jail in France, that is about 1 in 1000.
- 2,300,000 people in jail in the US, that is 1 about in 130.
Meaning proportionally, you have 7.5 more people in jail than we do. What do you think is the cause of this?

kittens · Post by **kittens** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:15 am

Killua wrote: I disagree that children who abuse animals should be punished because they might turn out to be human abusers. That there is a correlation certainly adds to the seriousness of the matter, and if the abuse is particularly bad it would be smart to watch for certain signs in the child of violent tendencies and try to counteract them, but the child should be punished simply because it is wrong to abuse an animal. No one should be punished for possible future acts.

I think they should be punished (I did not mean by government only but also by parents or teachers as well) and re-educated because it is morally wrong and also re-educated that it is not right thing to do. This will teach kids if they act something they have to also think about consequences and responsibility. If we just let go they will not learn.

The most important thing is to teach them how to act with responsibility, especially since there is strong correlations between animal abuses and violence toward humans it is very important to teach them.

This is not only animal abuse case. I think it is very important to teach them what is wrong thing to do and right thing to do early on and also how to act with responsibility.

kittens · Post by **kittens** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:20 am

Olivier wrote: I have another set of interesting statistics for you:
- 60,000 people in jail in France, that is about 1 in 1000.
- 2,300,000 people in jail in the US, that is 1 about in 130.
Meaning proportionally, you have 7.5 more people in jail than we do. What do you think is the cause of this?

How did you get this data sets? I am curious..... If you get them from internet without citing peer-review papers, please please please do NOT believe it (I am begging you as a statistician....

I have seen so many wrong statistics this makes me very sad

) I have posted some references of peer-review papers earlier..... if someone is interested in please read them.

Also I think it is time to stop..... No one in this forum is the specialist of studying animal abuse and violence. I am not. I am a professor of statistics at a university. So it is really good argument to see everyone's point. But I think it is time to let it go.

Not Sir Phobos · Post by **Not Sir Phobos** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:02 am

So, while the "most people who abuse animals go on to people" debate rolls on. I'd like to get back to that 75% number.

I do believe that reoccuring animal abuse or torture has a strong likelyness that the person will go on to human targets. However we are talking about 75%. That means for every 100 animal abusers you would kill that 25 of them would have never harmed a person. 25 innocent people.

Beyond that the guy in this discussion was in a drunken rage, he certainly wasn't doing it out of pleasure or curiosity. Difference there between serial killers and crime of passion murderers.

Killua · Post by **Killua** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:24 am

Not Sir Phobos wrote:So, while the "most people who abuse animals go on to people" debate rolls on. I'd like to get back to that 75% number.

I do believe that reoccuring animal abuse or torture has a strong likelyness that the person will go on to human targets. However we are talking about 75%. That means for every 100 animal abusers you would kill that 25 of them would have never harmed a person. 25 innocent people.

...? The 75% number does not say that, as has been reiterated in the "most people who abuse animals go on to people" debate.

Not Sir Phobos · Post by **Not Sir Phobos** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:47 am

Killua wrote:
Not Sir Phobos wrote:So, while the "most people who abuse animals go on to people" debate rolls on. I'd like to get back to that 75% number.

I do believe that reoccuring animal abuse or torture has a strong likelyness that the person will go on to human targets. However we are talking about 75%. That means for every 100 animal abusers you would kill that 25 of them would have never harmed a person. 25 innocent people.
...? The 75% number does not say that, as has been reiterated in the "most people who abuse animals go on to people" debate.

Okay then, forget the number, the point is innocent people would be killed.

Cloud · Post by **Cloud** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:47 am

What kind of people are you talking about?

sletia · Post by **sletia** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:20 am

Olivier wrote:
sletia wrote:I said I wasn't arguing anymore, alright? Just leave me alone already. I guess your child or as a child you killed a family pet or something, because you seem pretty darn defensive and adamant about all this being disproved. If it was me I would have just said "I don't agree with you" and let it go..
Nope, never killed any pet in my life. Please don't take it personally, I post only for the sake of argument. I am interested in everyone's opinion, but when I think there is an error in the reasoning I try to correct it. I can't agree when you write "People who abuse animals usually move up to PEOPLE". Although I see your point, I think this is a dangerous exageration of the truth. With such reasoning, you end-up putting half the population of the US in jail.

I have another set of interesting statistics for you:
- 60,000 people in jail in France, that is about 1 in 1000.
- 2,300,000 people in jail in the US, that is 1 about in 130.
Meaning proportionally, you have 7.5 more people in jail than we do. What do you think is the cause of this?

Couldn't tell ya, 'cause I'm not in the US.

moonrabitt · Post by **moonrabitt** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:01 pm

Yeah but people in drunk rages may hit walls, and perhaps hit someone or something, but when you go as far as killing it, there's a problem....

Is it better to let 10 guilty people go? or Kill 1 innocent person???
Well not really sure how the real quote goes, but it goes something like that......

I disagree that children who abuse animals should be punished because they might turn out to be human abusers.

I'm not saying that, just that they should be punished so they know that it's wrong. But the punishment should vary depending on the level of cruelty...I think that the kids should be sent to see a mental doctor so they can be evaluated....I've never hurt an animal, my brothers or sister have not...People that do have something wrong with them...can we agree on that????

I don't agree on the "EYE for an EYE" logic...
*If a drunk driver hurts you and you lose a limb, then with that logic we should take that limb away from him too....
*If someone rapes someone, then the person should be rapped (but that may happen when they to jail...maybe not rape since men can't be raped, but something along those lines)

I think we can both agree that since people argue over figures here and there...And since we only seem to have the numbers of people in the USA, and not statistics on the Whole World...that neither side can claim that they are right......

I think that we can modify the statement to read:

People who kill and abuse children and others most likely began with abusing animals.....

RoboFlonne · Post by **RoboFlonne** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:18 pm

moonrabitt wrote: I think that we can modify the statement to read:

People who kill and abuse children and others most likely began with abusing animals.....

That's exactly right! You have to teach children not to be abusive to animals or anything... Even if they are abusive to their toys, like ripping the heads off their dolls... You really have to teach them early....

Olivier · Post by **Olivier** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:57 pm

RoboFlonne wrote:Even if they are abusive to their toys, like ripping the heads off their dolls... You really have to teach them early....

OFF TOPIC: Actually, it's good to let them break a toy at least once: they then realise that a brand new toy doesn't magically appear instead of the broken one, and that they can't play with it anymore. They suddenly become more careful with the other toys

Explaining is always good, but it will never replace experiencing life - and kids need to learn through experience.

Killua · Post by **Killua** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:37 pm

Um, speaking as one who was once a little boy, I feel that children should be allowed to destroy toys. Especially dolls, like their little sister's dolls.

moonrabbit wrote:People that do have something wrong with them...can we agree on that????

Of course. I doubt anyone here would say that there's nothing wrong with a child who gets pleasure from killing a kitten or puppy.

maybe not rape since men can't be raped, but something along those lines)

Men can most certainly be raped. That's why incoming prisoners fear meeting Bubba.

Not Sir Phobos · Post by **Not Sir Phobos** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:32 am

RoboFlonne wrote:
moonrabitt wrote: I think that we can modify the statement to read:

People who kill and abuse children and others most likely began with abusing animals.....
That's exactly right! You have to teach children not to be abusive to animals or anything... Even if they are abusive to their toys, like ripping the heads off their dolls... You really have to teach them early....

If the child has the tendency to be violent or abusive then keeping them from abusing specific things does just that, it keeps them from abusing those specific things. It's not that they rip a doll's head off one day and they get an adrenaline rush and go "ooooooooohhhh yeah". It's that they have emotional or social problems stemming from somewhere and that's how it's manifesting itself. You have to kill the root to get rid of the weed.

*EDIT*
I thought this was in the speakeasy forum.